Nanny State – Literally!

Do you want the government involved in your parenting?

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry says your children are not yours – they are owned by the community. “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” says the professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. Kids belong to whole communities, she insists, and once we realize this we’ll make “better investments” in them. Ms. Harris-Perry believes that children are our communal responsibility and not the responsibility of their parents and families, that they “belong” to the whole society.

As Dennis Prager always says, “You have to be very highly educated to come up with ideas so divorced from reality.”

Actually, our children don’t “belong” to anyone. They are a gift to us, on loan from our Creator and our job is to help them become successful, moral, giving adults.

While it’s true that we want society to take seriously the needs of families and children and for the government to allocate its resources with that in mind, we certainly don’t want control taken out of the parents hands and placed in those of the government.

What’s troubling about Ms. Harris-Perry’s attitude is that it seems to take the humanity out of child-raising. Children are not machines or corporations or countries. They are complex human beings whose most basic needs of love and security could certainly not be satisfied by the government. (It seems absurd to have to say it.)

Perhaps the author has never heard of the early kibbutzim. A number of them embraced this theory, although certainly in a smaller environment. The children were raised in the children’s houses and not with their parents. They “belonged to the collective” just like in Melissa’s vision. Needless to say, it didn’t last. Even within the relatively homogenous setting of the kibbutz and even within the small community, it didn’t work. For two reasons – it was harmful to the children and it went against human instinct (the same reason that socialism will never actually work however wonderful it may sound in theory, and another way in which the subsequent collapse of kibbutzim have demonstrated the fallacy of this idea).

Would we really put something so precious in state hands?

What’s troubling is that the idea has any traction, that anyone would continue to suggest it. I don’t know if this television host has any children. I assume not since I can’t believe she would advocate such a preposterous concept once she has held her own child in her arms.

And even, if as some say, her words have been distorted and all she meant was that the government should be more involved in child-raising, her idea is disturbing. Whenever government control over any aspect of our lives is advocated, someone always raises the specter of the disastrously-run United States postal system. Would we really put something so precious in state hands?

But beyond that, I think that while it is certainly wonderful to live in a community and to turn to neighbors for help when necessary, all the clamoring for government assistance in child care, child raising, flexible work hours, work-life balance and on and on is symptomatic of an unwillingness to take responsibility for ones own life and to accept the consequences of our choices.

We’re back to the “you can’t have it all” argument which just won’t go away. I’m certainly an advocate for having children (if you catch me on the right day!) and I believe that there is nothing more valuable you can do with your life. But I also believe that, like every other choice we make, it has consequences. It opens up certain options and it closes off others.

And no one wants to accept that. When you get married, that ends (or should end) your ability to have an intimate relationship with any other members of the opposite sex. Some may find that restrictive. It is a price we are generally willing to pay in order to reap the benefits of marriage. But it certainly shuts some doors.

If you sign a business contract with a corporation or a sports team or commit to a certain movie or television show, you have shut some doors. You have curtailed your options. That is the reality of life.

And when you choose to have children, you are making a commitment to these dependent beings that restricts your other options. It may be as trivial as not being able to get out as often as you like or it may be that your career path is more limited due to the challenges of good day care and the trials of sick children. This is not something the government can fix. The government can’t hold a sick child in its arms and mop his or her head with a cold cloth to bring down a fever. The government can’t help them study for a test and comfort them when the grade isn’t as high as expected. The government can’t steer them through the challenges of middle school and mean girls and incompetent teachers. It can’t help them cope with peer pressure in high school and give dating advice as they get older. The government can’t model good marriages and ethical behavior and common courtesy.

Parenting is a 24/7 job for the rest of your and their lives (yes, even when they’re out of the house, even when they’re married, even when you’re a grandparent). It’s a tough job, and it’s a meaningful job. And most of all, it’s a challenge that can’t be handed off to anyone else – not the nanny, not their grandparents, not their teachers and certainly not the government.

I shudder to think what would happen were Ms. Harris-Perry’s ideas to be embraced. But I’m not really worried that they will. The parent-child bond is so strong and so primal that few of us would ever give it over to anyone else whatever the pundits may say.

About the Author

Emuna Braverman has a law degree from the University of Toronto and a Masters in in Clinical Psychology with an emphasis on Marriage and Family Therapy from Pepperdine University. She lives with her husband and nine children in Los Angeles where they both work for Aish HaTorah. When she isn''t writing for the Internet or taking care of her family, Emuna teaches classes on Judaism, organizes gourmet kosher cooking groups and hosts many Shabbos guests. She is the cofounder of www.gourmetkoshercooking.com.

Visitor Comments: 33

(18)
Anonymous,
August 16, 2013 1:10 AM

The Nanny State is HERE, in at least some child custody divorce cases

Like the author, I live in Los Angeles County. I'm sorry to report that if one goes through a child custody case (e.g. if divorcing, with minor children and disagreement between the parents), one may be subject to simply shocking nanny-state sentiments and actions. I'm unwilling to detail here what happened in my family's case, but I welcome the author to contact me via the email address I've provided (and I welcome the editor to provide it to her). Thanks!

(17)
Anonymous,
April 20, 2013 6:14 PM

Great article!

Actually I agree with this article. As a parent, mother, and young grand mother, I can say children are the most important and rewarding role and investment. Jobs, cars, houses, all come and go. The family is a sacred unit. Interference is unnecessary when all is well. A one size fits all of little square pegs are perhaps the western idea of perfection of uniformly conditioned drones. Just a hint at these ideas should arouse a strong outcry. Because Hitler's ideas were first aired in little hints, small nuances....This should serve as a loud and clear warning, because all crazy ideas start somewhere....On the note of kibbutzim, a disproportionate number of ppl emerged with mental ilnesses. Dont ever undervalue a mother's personal touch and love and affection to her own children.

(16)
Anonymous,
April 19, 2013 12:08 PM

Good morning everyone. Please allow me to be a little tangential when I say how much I have enjoyed reading the different viewpoints posted here. Also, Emuna Braverman inspires me to work on becoming a better writer. Have a good shabbos!

(15)
Sharon,
April 19, 2013 8:25 AM

context

The comment that children don't belong to their parents is correct in the context that parents don't have the right to abuse their kids as a result of ownership. In that sense they belong to the community. The parents have the responsibility to raise the kids, but if for some reason they are not able to fulfill the responsibility then the responsibility reverts to the community. The focus is not on ownership but responsibility. In cases of serious neglect or abuse parents lose their rights.

(14)
Billy Glenn,
April 19, 2013 4:34 AM

Child Rearing

It does not take a village to raise a child as some contend. Noah raised his kids right and the village went to hell.

Joe,
April 19, 2013 4:05 PM

That is a gross distortion of Torah.

It should be pointed out that the Midrash and commentaries make clear that Noah was not particularly righteous,- merely righteous for his generation (which was degenerate enough to cause the flood) and that one of the sons you feel he "raised right" castrated him (it was a bit more than just uncovering his nakedness). Actual Torah on the other hand very clearly tells us about duties and obligations to Hashem and each other. Amongst those duties are the education and care of children - not just as parents but as a community. The mental mismatch here - on the right, is the hubris that contends that somehow - they did it all themselves and deserve all they were given. The reality is that we are each born totally dependent on Hashem and others. The reality is that money is a blessing in as much as you use it to do good. The reality is that your time on this Earth is a blessing in as much as you use it to reach out to Hashem. The reality is that Hashem is very, very clear about caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, establishing unbiased courts that do not serve the wealthy over the poor, educating the young and doing all the things a righteous society might do.

(13)
Anonymous,
April 18, 2013 7:54 PM

What has this world come to!

If Ms. Harris-Perry believes so strongly that my children belong to the community/government then why is she not the one taking care of the newborn why doesn't the community take care of the children in the wee hours of the night when they are sick, take them to the doctors and not just the pediatrician what about the specialists! That's why we are called parents!! Let's see how quick or how deep the communities pockets are to pay for all the extras. We live in a FREE country. Remember FREE. In the Jewish community we all look out for each other, and each others children but we don't say they are community property. Parents have THEIR children for the continuity of the generations. People have way too much time on their hands thinking of ways to control everyone and everything in life. They need to get a life and let others live, and FREE at that.

(12)
Charlie Hall,
April 18, 2013 4:08 PM

But it IS our responsibility

At least in the Jewish world, which accepted the decree by Ben Gamla to provide every community an adequate school and every child an adequate education, paid for with communal funds if necessary.

And several specifics:

"disastrously-run United States postal system"

To the contrary, the US Postal Service is by far the single most efficient way of getting documents and small parcels across the US. It can get your letter across the country in two to three days for $0.46. UPS and FedEx charge $18.80 and $24.70, respectively! The USPS's current financial problems are the result of an attempt by Congressional Republicans to destroy it by imposing mandates regarding retirement plans that no private business faces.

"your career path is more limited due to the challenges of good day care and the trials of sick children. This is not something the government can fix."

Actually, the government can do that, and in New York City it makes a big effort to do that by providing child care vouchers, which overwhelmingly benefit the Orthodox Jewish community more than any other.

"The government can’t hold a sick child in its arms and mop his or her head with a cold cloth to bring down a fever."

Actually, staff at government run and government funded health clinics do just that every day.

" The government can’t help them study for a test and comfort them when the grade isn’t as high as expected."

Government programs to help students improve their performance actually can and do help.

Nobody is suggesting eliminating parents, except when abusive and/or neglectful parents need to be prevented from harming their child. But the idea that our children are a communal responsibility is very much a Jewish idea, and the nihilistic attitude towards government is not grounded in either fact or in our tradition.

Rachel,
April 18, 2013 7:34 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself

And no one is clamoring for government assistance with flexible work schedules or work-life balance. The clamor is for corporate America to step up and realize that there are many talented people who don't want to make an either-or choice between a job or a family.
Furthermore, one could also argue (as was the case until early 20th century America) that "if you want to be a religious Jew, you give up some things -- either you can have a job, or you can have the time you need to pray 3 times a day, be home for your Sabbath early on Friday afternoons, not work on Saturdays or your holidays." Fortunately for all of us who keep Shabbat, the government now prohibits religious discrimination in employment (employer can't refuse to hire someone because of their beliefs) and REQUIRES reasonable accommodation of religious practice (employees may be able to perform additional hours at their convenience, for example, in order to leave early on Fridays.)
Finally: I would suspect the author and her husband had some help from their families in the early years of their marriage, whether with education, a home, babysitting, etc. Well, guess what? MANY of us who do not come from observant families have no such safety net. Similarly, many perfectly decent, hard-working people in other communities also do not have access to family assistance for better schools or better neighborhoods. It is time that as a society, we did a better job of making sure that all children have a safe place to live, adequate food, health care, and education.

(11)
lesliealyce,
April 18, 2013 2:45 PM

Tone it down...

It seems that liberal bashing is a favorite sport on this website. Is it such a disgrace to proclaim in another way that "it takes a village to raise a child?"It is difficult to hear your side amid the put downs of people you disagree with.

(10)
moshe,
April 18, 2013 1:57 PM

this takes Ms. Harris perrys words out of context

please see Ms.Harris Perry's response to the tumult. I think that her words in Ms Bravermans article are sort of taken out of context. She did not mean that parents cant bring their children up as they see fit. She meant that we all have a responsibility to ensure that they can have the best chance at success as possible and that is good for the community at large and therefore the community responsibility as well. Not unlike how we as Orthodox Jews view all the children as the future of the Jewish people. and therefore the responsibility of the Jewish people (communal day schools etc etc). That is not to say that parents don't have the primary responsibility and rights in bringing up their children. So please , lets all calm don and admit that Ms. harris perry did not mean anything so sinister.

I believe this movement is sinister, and it is not just coming from Ms. Harris Perry. If you will do a little research, guiding education to be in control of the government started many years ago. When the government controls education, they can indoctrinate the minds of children however they want. Remember Hitler youth; it Can and Will happen again, unless we are vigilant.

Pesach,
April 18, 2013 4:26 PM

Please don't take responsibility for my children

Dear Moshe, Please don't take responsibility for my children even if you feel like this. Dear Jewish community, Please don't take responsibility deciding for me where to teach better my children - in this Orhthodox Yeshiva on in that communal day school. Dear government, Please mind your business trying to fix disastorous public education. Like foster parents are never substitute for natural ones, the education could not be fixed by unlimited government control on the teacher's classroom work and by averaging students' talents through endless mind-numbing multiple choice test preparations.

moshe,
April 18, 2013 8:58 PM

pesach

pesach- feel free to take what I said out of context as well.
you know very well what I meant as responsibilitty and Ms. harris as well. . have you ever heard of scholarships in schools? Maos Chittim for poor people, Chevrah kadisha, the list goes on and on. she was not saying that anyone should be forced to do something. she was saing that they should be able to have opportunities afforded to them and that the community at large gains from it.

ellen,
April 18, 2013 6:13 PM

agreed

Absolutely, her words were taken far out of context, and it surprised me in a sense that commentators would take the opportunity to relate the article to liberals. What are we all coming to? She was referring to all Americans caring about other Americans. When we see a child in trouble, it is our collective responsibility to help...not just Jews for Jews or liberals for liberals, but EVERYONE for each other...to reach out and be neighborly. Seems like her article was far too simple for us to understand.

(9)
Avigail,
April 18, 2013 2:55 AM

The True Liberal Mindset

This TV host's comments are not to be taken lightly. They really mean what they say. It is actually true what David Horowitz says in FrontPagemag.com (he is a former Marxist) that inside every liberal is a totalitarian screamling to get out. Or, as Thomas Sowell, so insightfully says (paraphrasing), socialism is such a failed and miserable ideology that only an intellectual elite could support it.

(8)
Dassie,
April 17, 2013 12:59 PM

Postal system? Look at the foster care system...

Great post, Emuna. And thanks for addressing this issue by emphasizing the spiritual aspect of parenting. And your example of the kibbutz movement was spot-on -- I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, and it really should be. There are almost no other examples like it.

The foster care system shows what happens when government gets involved in child-rearing. While there are many excellent foster homes, there are also many very bad ones. Survivors of the foster care system report a lot physical and/or sexual abuse AFTER having been removed from their original home. Sometimes, the foster parents are as bad or even worse than the biological parents. And even if the homes are okay, just the fact that the kids often get shuffled around from home to home through the years is traumatic for them.

If that's what the system is like for children who really are disadvantaged and abused, then we can only imagine what it would be like if the government involved itself with ALL children.

(7)
Joe,
April 16, 2013 9:39 PM

The authors' point is taken too far

Some devil's advocate questions:

What about really bad parents? Should the government take sexually abused children away from their abusive parents? I should think so, and yes, as a community, we have a duty to act. Torah would not let you ignore a drowning child either.

What about delusional parents? Should the government step in when the parents are mentally incapacitated, psychotic or dangerous? Even more common, should the government step in when the sincere, deeply held, but delusional religious beliefs of the parents prevent children from getting basic, proven, necessary and life-saving medical care? I should think so and yes, Torah would not let you ignore a the hurts of a wounded child either.

What about children who are brought up to hate? Does the community have a duty to try to teach kids that it is wrong to be racist, cruel and ignorant, even though their parents have deeply held views of racism, cruelty and ignorance? Should KKK parents be allowed to poison young minds any more than Hamasnick parents?

And a final question, if not us, who? If not now, when?

Anonymous,
April 18, 2013 1:33 PM

Joe, I got the message from Mrs. Braverman article that she was speaking in general terms, about the normal, standard ways that society views this issue. Joe, your devils advocate questions speak to issues that represent extreme or outlier problems. Society must provide for these sad and troubling problems.

Akiva,
April 18, 2013 2:10 PM

Joe - if not us, who? If not now, when?

Exactly - "if not us who" is the right question.
The problem is many people are answering that question by saying NOT US, the government can do it. Being a responsible adult is a tough job. So they vote to give the government more money, power, control, and vote to give themselves the "rights" to government provided healthcare, child care, education, food stamps, housing, phones. The gov has become the nanny for a big chunk of our citizens, and they will vote for more of the same (until the money runs out).
No one would agree the gov should not remove children from dangerous situations, maybe even from racist parents. But what happens when the gov decides YOU are a racist? After all, Jews think they are chosen. And they are sexist - the women wear skirts and cover their hair! Get those innocent kids out of there!
When the gov gets to define who is too racist or ignorant to raise kids, you might not like what you get.
An example of this is public schools - the gov has decided homosexuality and gay marriage are "good", so if you send your kids there, they will be instructed in the government's approved message. If you don't like the message, too bad. If you object to the indoctrination, expect to be labelled an ignorant bigot and demonized.

(6)
Anonymous,
April 16, 2013 11:25 AM

To Alan S--Many years ago I had a small fire in my home. I called my local fire department and thank g-d, nobody was hurt. The firefighters are employed by my local township, to which I pay taxes. Are they considered to be a government agency? Yes! Did I ask for help from the government in that instance? Yes! Of course I did not receive a bill for this service. Would you or anyone else have preferred that I call a "private entity?" I personally am very glad I was able to get the help I needed from that arm of local government. Calling upon our government agencies as I did does not make one into an irresponsible being. Btw--I hope NOBODY on this message board has been through a fire!

Alan S.,
April 18, 2013 1:29 PM

Sorry to hear about your fire. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I do not want to get off the topic of what Mrs. Braverman was writing about. However, one can not compare the need for emergency services, which your and my tax dollars help provide, with a person deciding to have a child but knowing before hand that tax dollars will be needed to provide for and help raise the child. We are a compassionate society, but can only afford so much. I am sure that you did not set a fire to see the fire dept. in action. We don’t have a choice of how our tax dollars are spent. Tax dollars for urgent or emergent service for a child is an understandable and a good use of tax money. But to have a child knowing that you can’t afford to provide the basic necessities, and will automatically and immediately need to depend on tax dollars, is wrong.

(5)
Bruce,
April 16, 2013 6:00 AM

Investments?

Ms. Harris-Perry's argument breaks down for all the reasons Mrs. Braverman notes. But even ignoring all those problems, it fails on its own terms. If we can more and better "investment" in something, we should encourage private ownership, not communal ownership. For example, people invest in and maintain their own homes, but neither the residents nor the government invests adequately adequately or maintains publically owned housing. In fact, this problem has become so serious that the government has moved away from public housing and now supports privately owned low income housing.

So even if we agreed with Ms. Harris-Perry's description of the problem, the best solution is simply for the government to encourage parents to care for their own children, or at least get out of the way.

(4)
Darren,
April 15, 2013 1:53 AM

Its enough of this Leftist nonsense.

Leftism is destroying western society. Look at Europe. Its shame that so many Jews (especially in America) support this morally corruptive ideology.

Cincinnati,
April 15, 2013 10:39 PM

Agree

Once the government takes our children from us, they next will take religion. A society without G-d and family is totally at the will of government for their needs. This is the ultimate liberal agenda - dependance.

Anonymous,
April 17, 2013 7:28 AM

So did you build that computer you typed that on?

Or rather did you build it yourself after discovering the basic quantum physics behind it, integrating the chips yourself, in a house you built yourself, in a nation you defended by yourself, after hunting, growing and cooking your all of your own food with clothing and tools you made yourself? Unless you can honestly say yes to each of those things, I am afraid you will have to admit you are a taker too, and probably not much of a maker.

Joe,
April 17, 2013 7:21 AM

How about Torah?

Those leftist values of caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the widow and the orphan sound an awful lot like Torah don't you think? Though Avos has an answer to Randians and other self described "makers." It tells us plainly, that the notion of what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine (and hence I have no duty to others) is the way of Sodom. Kindness, charity, education of the young and care for others are not choices. They are commandments. How rightwingers can thump on a bible they have apparently never read has always offended me.

EGE,
April 18, 2013 2:39 PM

Yes, but...

It's all a matter of degree. Yes, we are obligated to help the poor, feed the hungry, and take care of widows ad orphans, but the obligatory part of that requirement is capped at ten percent of income across the board. If someone wants to give more - and he CAN - good for him. On the other side of the coin, the Torah is clearly against the type of welfare economy that disincentivizes work and independence. The highest form of charity is that which sets the receiver on the path of independence - the one that will give him the tools to eventually become a giver himself. Modern day liberal ideology has no concept of this.

Cincinnati,
April 18, 2013 11:43 PM

Exactly the case..

In the words of recently deceased Margaret Thatcher. "We eventually run out of other people's money."

(3)
Anonymous,
April 14, 2013 11:02 PM

So, in your view people are not taking responsibility for their choices? Is that what asking for help from our government means to you? You are a brilliant writer and an inspiration to me. However, I think you are being VERY judgmental and short-sighted in this essay. We are not living in 1950s America. The times have changed. Obtaining governmental help with child care shows initiative and caring on the part of the parents.

Alan S.,
April 15, 2013 6:42 PM

Nothing was wrong with 1950s America per se...

Two things need to be commented on. First, Ms. Braverman is not being judgemental. Though Ms. Braverman needs no help defending herself, anonymouse should understand that by definition, writing an opinion piece is declaring a belief, thereby rendering a judgement. This is the default nature of an opinion piece.
Secondly, anonymous must clarify the statement "Obtaining help...." One can interpret the statement to mean that, if parents choose to have children, while it is a personal choice, a compassionate government should make policies for the greater good of all children, such as requiring vaccinations, schooling, abuse prevention. However, if parents choose to have children knowing that the child will require monetary help from the taxpayers, then I say, G-d help us. A government should not be involved in raising or paying for that child, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

(2)
Galia Berry,
April 14, 2013 1:49 PM

Indeed the Orwellian threat of government interference is scary. But on a much more realistic level, we are in a very tragic situation today that is even more threatening and real. As families struggle to pay ever-rising tuition costs for Jewish day school, both parents must work full-time, leaving the children at extended daycare or with babysitters. Parents are often unable to greet their children when they come home from school in the afternoon, and unable to send them off in the morning because they leave for work early and come home late. By the time the parents can connect with their kids, they are cranky and it's not exactly a great time to relate to your kids when it's all about homework. That precious one day a week - Shabbos - is simply not enough time spent with the kids. Other than making aliyah (in Israel the school tuition is free or considerably less expensive and the day is structured differently), I admit I don't have a solution, but I do feel the lack of parent presence is grossly upsetting the Jewish family unit because it is the babysitters raising our children, not the parents. I'm not blaming the parents - they are sacrificing to ensure their children receive a quality day school Jewish education - - but they may be sacrificing in ways that are overly costly.

(1)
Alan S.,
April 14, 2013 10:34 AM

Everyword written is true. The bigger questions is where government involvement should end in society? I am always worried about the slippery slope concept. Should government make laws about how much soda we should drink? Should government make laws about permitting parents to stay home with sick children and forcing businesses to offer paid sick days to those parents, in effect accomodating parents? I am a parent and while I believe that government policies should promote the family concept, my ideas might not match the next person's who might believe that government should not be involved in promoting one life style over another.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...